Facts: A certain Rita Tapnio (Mrs. Tapnio) was indebted
to the petitioner Bank with the amount of P2,000. A bond was executed by the
Petitioner and the defendant as principal to guarantee such debt. Demands were
sent to defendant but she believed of not having a debt to the Bank because an
agreement between him and Mr. Tuazon, the excess sugar quota will be leased,
was noted by the said Bank thus Mrs. Tapnio filed for damages in that case. The
Bank posits that having a lien on the crops harvested by Mrs. Tapnio, they can
collect from her. Mr. Tuazon who agrees to the lease, which could have absolved
Mrs. Tapnio from her debt to the Bank, later on communicated his withdrawal
from the agreement because the bank would not consider that the rental will be
in P2.80 per picul because they would want a P13.00 per picul, which the
parties were not notified by the bank.
The RTC granted the defendant Mrs. Tapnio awards for damages against the
Bank that led to appeal which the CA denied the petition, came this petition in
the SC.
Issue: Whether or not the Bank is held liable for damages
under Article 21 of the Civil Code?
Held: To quote the SC, “While petitioner had the ultimate
authority of approving or disapproving the proposed lease since the quota was
mortgaged to the Bank, the latter certainly cannot escape its responsibility of
observing, for the protection of the interest of private respondents, that
degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand
in approving or disapproving the lease of said sugar quota.” Because the Bank
failed to convey their non-consideration of the lease price to the defendant,
it showed their lack of diligence, and did not comply on the provision of Article
21 of the Civil Code which in turn held them liable for damages.
No comments:
Post a Comment